PFD report

Eliot Peter Burton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Apr 2021•West Yorkshire Eastern

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
4

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
22

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Lack of on-site supervision at a remote site
  2. Insufficient prevention of access to the site via the adjacent weir
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites
  3. Failure to protect deep water channels from falls
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water locations
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.16

  1. Action

    Conduct post-construction reviews and further feasibility assessments to evaluate the implemented measures and identify additional safety improvements.

    Stated by Wakefield City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  2. Action

    Maintain and replace prominent danger signage, including emergency-location information, around the weir and water’s edge.

    Stated by Wakefield City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  3. Action

    Continue scheduled manned security inspections at Kirkthorpe Weir and extend the inspection regime to other accessible water sites across the district.

    Stated by Wakefield City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 May 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.11

  1. Position

    Physical safety measures are constrained by the weir’s listed status, required planning approvals, ecological considerations and the need to protect habitats.

    Stated by Wakefield City CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of on-site supervision at a remote site

Wider context from the report

“1. The site is always unmanned. It is located in a remote area ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficient prevention of access to the site via the adjacent weir

Wider context from the report

“4. Despite perimeter fencing, it is known that one route for children to gain entry to the site is by crossing the River Calder at the Kirkthorpe weir adjacent to the site. There are few, if any impediments to prevent access to the weir from the river bank opposite the site. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to protect deep water channels from falls

Wider context from the report

“3. There are deep uncovered channels on the site to conduct water through the facility. It is foreseeable that a trespasser would be in a precarious situation if they were to fall into the water, as Elliot Burton did. Many of the channels are uncovered, and /or have no edge protection. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for drowning risks at open-water locations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Trespassing by young people onto the site

Wider context from the report

“2. It is known that in the years 2018-2021, young people have trespassed onto the site. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to take effective action to reduce the risk of harm from child trespass

Wider context from the report

“5. Despite the passage of some 21 months since Elliot Burton’s death, little effective action has been taken to reduce the risk of children being harmed if they are tempted to trespass on this site. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct post-construction reviews and further feasibility assessments to evaluate the implemented measures and identify additional safety improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4.1 After the tragedy that resulted in the death of Elliott Burton, Wakefield Council has been actively pursuing safety measures to prevent further deaths at the location of the Kirkthorpe Weir since August 2019. We have worked closely with the HSE throughout and all the associated parties involved. We have taken a lead to progress new and improved safety measures on both sides of the river. These endeavours are not without significant challenges due to the physical locale and natural elements to contend with. We are however confident that the schemes we are aiming to complete over the coming months will reduce the risk of recurrence as much as is possible. After the construction phases are complete we are planning several reviews and further feasibilities – to ascertain if the measures we have implemented are as effective as anticipated or if more can be achieved.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Maintain and replace prominent danger signage, including emergency-location information, around the weir and water’s edge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.4 It was apparent from both visits that the west bank area was frequented by a popular spot to swim and fish by members of the public. It was agreed that some immediate measures could be taken to highlight the dangers of the fast flowing water. The Council and YHP over the coming weeks instigated the updating and adding of additional safety signage. This included warning of the dangers of the water, fall from heights and the Weir itself. Many of these signs were promptly vandalised and removed by persons unknown. The Council have been actively checking and replacing these since the incident. The signage has evolved to larger and more prominent notifications, and we have added the “What 3 Words” location data to each. This is a system the emergency services use to locate accurately anyone in distress in remote areas.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue scheduled manned security inspections at Kirkthorpe Weir and extend the inspection regime to other accessible water sites across the district.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.1 In recognition of the demanding challenges to construct suitably designed physical barriers on both sides of the river in a short time, the Council has been undertaking regular manned security inspections to discourage anyone entering the water, and highlighting the dangers. This is undertaken specifically on hot weather days, holidays and alike as well as periodically through each month. This regime is recorded and has been in place since the summer of 2020. This security detail has also been extended to other still and flowing water body sites across the district where public have regular access.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Progress detailed design, approvals, procurement and construction of a physical riverside barrier protecting the Yorkshire Hydro Plant perimeter.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1.3 The current strategy and plans are to undertake comprehensive physical works and construction projects. This is with aim to design and build robust physical barriers in the challenging and changing environments on the embankments adjacent the Kirkthorpe Weir. The result will be to prevent as far as reasonably practicable, trespass to the Yorkshire Hydro Plant and access to the Weir on both sides of the river in this locale. This project is working in Partnership with the Yorkshire Hydro Plant – Foresight Group (YHP) and the Canals and River Trust (CRT). Wakefield Council have also been working in close liaison with the Health and Safety Executive from the outset of this case.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Develop and procure approximately 300 metres of west-bank fencing with robust signage, conservation information boards and a safe viewing platform.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.6 Phase 3 is running in parallel to Phase 2. This is a solely Council led initiative, the concept of which was supported by the HSE. This is to add further fenced protection to the west bank of the river based on our revised risk assessment of the site.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Revise the west-bank risk assessment and erect fenced barriers to restrict access to the weir and water’s edge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.5 In January 2020 the Council revised the risk assessment for the west bank. This resulted in not only replacing numerous signs, but we also erected several new fenced barriers in attempt to improve safety and restricting access to the Weir and waters’ edge. The fencing construction at that time was limited. This area is heavy in vegetation, trees and swathes of wild Japanese knotweed. It has therefore been a very challenging environment to place physical barriers successfully.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue engaging with Yorkshire Hydropower Limited and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to address shared risks and implement appropriate control measures at Kirkthorpe Weir.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has and continues to proactively engage with the other parties involved (YHL and WMDC) in relation to shared risks at Kirkthorpe Weir and the implementation of control measures as appropriate.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-from-Canal-River-Trust-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Support procurement and continue necessary design and procurement input while facilitating construction of the riverside barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4.4 YHL are supporting WMDC in the procurement process for the steel works while the planning application is being reviewed.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Install galvanised steel fans and associated fencing to block access routes around the outlet channel, fish pass, downstream outlet and escape ladder.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.12 With reference to access along the capping beam which encloses the outlet channel, we have had to balance the need for any structures to be robust so as to resist flood impact and also to be reasonably accessible for maintenance (for example through the use of hand tools). We will be installing a galvanised steel fan, bolted to the capping beam and spanning out over the outlet channel.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Add fence returns, mesh infills, warning signs, internal barriers, secure gates and practicable channel covers to deter unauthorised access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.3 In relation to access from the landside perimeter, we have added further fence panel returns and signage, we have also now had expert advice as to the use of galvanised metal spiked fans. Where practicable these will be used to deter persons from climbing around the edge of perimeter fence panels where they open on to the river and accessing ledges within the Facility. The objective is to make access difficult and unattractive to the Facility as a whole, and within it in relation to those areas where there are drops to deep and potentially fast flowing water. However, these measures must not create debris traps that import significant risk for those required to then remove debris and maintain the structures.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Install a hinged, lockable plate on the penstock-actuator access ladder to prevent unauthorised climbing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.15 Another area which has had interest from trespassers is the high level bridge across the intake penstock which provides operational access to the penstock actuator. Access to the bridge is via a vertical ladder. We will be installing a hinged, and lockable plate, fitted to the ladder to prevent it being climbed by unauthorised persons.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the summer manned-security presence for deterrence, incidents, guard safety, operating times and interaction with other measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1.4 We will review the effectiveness of this at the end of the summer. This review will include consideration of any interactions between the guard and potential or actual trespassers, the personal safety of the guard, whether trespass was deterred and/or incidents prevented and whether the times were aligned with the periods of activity in the locality. The effectiveness and/or necessity of having such a security presence will also be viewed in the context of the other measures being implemented, these are discussed in response to your other paragraphs below.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Enhance CCTV coverage and resolution, monitor it continuously, and improve the PA system for remotely issued trespass warnings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1.2 As set out in evidence before the inquest, public safety and site security is aided by extensive CCTV which is monitored by Servo, our security contractors, who can communicate directly via the site PA system and also will make reports to the Police and relevant key holders.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Commission a detailed options report and develop an agreed design for a barrier at the weir and sluice-gate interface.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4.2 The sluice gates and weir are not on land which is owned or controlled by YHL. Since the tragic incident YHL has sought to engage with the relevant parties to consider whether it is feasible to construct an additional barrier on or around these structures where they interface with the Facility. YHL does not have the authority to take action unilaterally in relation to any such works.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Trial a manned security presence daily from 10am to 8pm during summer months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1.3 We are currently trialling having a manned security presence on site between the hours of 10am to 8pm, 7 days a week for the summer months. Primarily the guard is a deterrent. The guard will be limited in challenging trespassers, for example they will not be able to physically remove them from the Facility.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Extend the screen-walkway access, relocate the existing end handrail and fit additional mesh decking over the screenings-channel end.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.4 We are reducing the attraction of this route at the upstream end by extending the access along the screen walkway to include access over the end of the screenings channel. This would reduce the attraction to climb through/over to see what is beyond. This will be achieved by relocating the existing end handrail and fitting additional mesh decking.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Physical safety measures are constrained by the weir’s listed status, required planning approvals, ecological considerations and the need to protect habitats.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.7 Further challenges to enable physical measures more quickly have been that the Weir construct itself is a listed structure. As such conservation planning consents and change to consider Historic England Planning approvals. Ecological factors have also had to be considered in terms of the fish passes on the Weir for example, and DEFRA generally. This impacts on the final”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Some proposed river barriers were rejected because their designs could create foreseeable risks or fail in flood conditions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.6 During this time, consultation with all 3 parties and the HSE were looking at the more challenging aspect of preventing trespass to YHP from the river and particularly gaining access by members of the public traversing the Weir. Several engineering solutions were considered each with their own difficulties with construction in a fast flowing river. Some solutions were dismissed. They may have prevented trespass, but their inherent design upon scrutiny, potentially caused other foreseeable risks. Other solutions may not have withstood flood waters.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Construction timing is constrained by river conditions, including a requirement not to undertake works during flooding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2 There are 3 Phases of work associated with the safety works at Kirkthorpe Weir. Phase 1 has been the measures taken to date as noted. Phase 2 is a joint approach to design a suitable physical barrier to the perimeter of the YHP site on the river side. The concept of this has been in the feasibility and design stages since June 2020, with the first designs suggested in October 2020.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Canals and Rivers Trust is responsible for upkeep and maintenance of its weir structure and the waterway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.1 Wakefield Council has taken a significant lead in formulating a safety strategy for the area surrounding Kirkthorpe Weir. The Council owns the land on both sides of the river at this point. The west bank is part of the area known as the Southern Washlands and has nearby fishing lakes, country side walks and public footpaths. The east bank is the location of the YHP Plant. The plant owners lease the land, but have full responsibility as occupier for their own construction, operations and buildings with demise. This includes their security and perimeter management. CRT have ownership of approximately half of the Victorian weir construct. The council own the other half - but CRT take responsibility for its upkeep and general maintenance. The waterway”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Yorkshire Hydro Plant owners are responsible for security and perimeter management of their leased plant, buildings and operational area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.1 Wakefield Council has taken a significant lead in formulating a safety strategy for the area surrounding Kirkthorpe Weir. The Council owns the land on both sides of the river at this point. The west bank is part of the area known as the Southern Washlands and has nearby fishing lakes, country side walks and public footpaths. The east bank is the location of the YHP Plant. The plant owners lease the land, but have full responsibility as occupier for their own construction, operations and buildings with demise. This includes their security and perimeter management. CRT have ownership of approximately half of the Victorian weir construct. The council own the other half - but CRT take responsibility for its upkeep and general maintenance. The waterway”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Operational and safety decisions, including preventing recurrence, are the responsibility of Yorkshire Hydropower Limited rather than Foresight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Such operational decisions were, and are, decisions for YHL to make, entirely independent of Foresight, as these companies have separate legal personas. Any person holding a director role by virtue of Foresight's Investment Advisory Services contract is an employee of Foresight's business and a director of YHL. Any such individual is fulfilling two distinct roles, which are clearly delineated and do not afford Foresight any control over YHL, including how any director should have exercised their discretion as a director. Clearly any director has a statutory obligation to act only in the best interests of the company and not to vote on matters in which they had a conflict of interest.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Foresight-Group-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Foresight disputes having controlled Yorkshire Hydropower Limited’s operations or constrained its director’s decisions regarding site safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a responsible company, and in light of your concerns raised in the Regulation 28 report, we have reviewed the recordings of the evidence given to identify any steps required on Foresight's part. However we have identified nothing indicating that Foresight had control of YHL's operations, or that ████████ role with Foresight dictated or constrained his actions as a director of YHL.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Foresight-Group-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Responsibility for installing deterrent fencing on land not owned or managed by the Trust rests with WMDC and other involved parties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of meetings between the Trust (myself attending) and representatives of WMDC and YHL. We have discussed the risks and potential mitigations, and the outcome of those discussions is a proposal to install a fence at the interface between the hydroplant and the sluice gates. This would be on land not owned or managed by the Trust, though the Trust is a”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-from-Canal-River-Trust-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Covering the channels is not reasonably practicable because flooding, debris, maintenance access and potential escape hazards would introduce greater risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3.2 The use of fences and barriers within the Facility, as well as the covering of channels has to be considered in the context of debris entrapment and critically, access for those removing it. The force of the river and the substantial debris that collects can and has caused damage to the Facility, this is one of the major operational concerns in this dynamic environment.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The weir and sluice gates are not owned or controlled, and unilateral action to install barriers there is outside the authority available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4.1 The route used by Elliot to access the Facility was to walk across the weir from the bank opposite, climb over the sluice gate structure and over a timber fence. The sluice gates (which are a listed structure) and the weir substantially predate the construction of the Facility.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council leads construction of the barrier at the weir and sluice gates through completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4.3 YHL has been part of a working group with WMDC and CRT since before the inquest. YHL commissioned a detailed options report which formed the basis of the final design, agreed by the group, for a barrier at this location. The details of that design have been submitted by WMDC to the local planning authority.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. 1

    Link water-safety policies and procedures across still and flowing water sites to identify improvements and make recommendations for safety interventions.

    Stated by Wakefield City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  2. 2

    Provide directors and prospective directors with IOSH-recognised training on legal, commercial, operational and health-and-safety duties.

    Stated by Foresight GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  3. 3

    Continue delivering water-safety education and outreach through school resources, safety videos, school communications, digital sessions and regional sessions for children.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  4. 4

    Provide priority statutory responses to planning applications affecting Kirkthorpe Weir and navigation.

    Stated by Canal & River TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  5. 5

    Maintain liaison with local emergency services as an unauthorised-access safety measure.

    Stated by Yorkshire Hydropower LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 May 2021.
  6. 6

    Complete a detailed review of known trespass routes with an external health and safety adviser.

    Stated by Yorkshire Hydropower LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 May 2021.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Link water-safety policies and procedures across still and flowing water sites to identify improvements and make recommendations for safety interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Council are also linking its current still water body health and safety policies and procedures, to other areas of flowing water within the district. This is to look at where we can improve safety at other potential hazardous sites, with a consistent approach to water safety. This is ongoing and when complete, recommendations will be made to the Corporate Management Team for any rectification or interventions we may need to implement to improve safety.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Wakefield-Council-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Provide directors and prospective directors with IOSH-recognised training on legal, commercial, operational and health-and-safety duties.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Foresight does routinely provide training to Directors, and those who may become Directors, on their duties and expectations in the role of Director on project company boards. This training is provided by third party training providers and covers legal, commercial and operational aspects of Directors' duties. It also includes training on specific duties Directors have in relation to health and safety matters, which is recognised by the Institution of Occupational Health and Safety (IOSH). This training is intended to equip those who may fulfil a statutory role on their obligations so that they can discharge these responsibly.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Foresight-Group-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue delivering water-safety education and outreach through school resources, safety videos, school communications, digital sessions and regional sessions for children.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note that your letter has been sent to media representatives with a view to conveying the nature of the risks to families living on the nearby Eastmoor Estate. Following Elliot’s tragic death, the Trust has rolled out a number of educational and outreach activities as part of its 2020-2021 programme and this work continues, including:”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-from-Canal-River-Trust-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Provide priority statutory responses to planning applications affecting Kirkthorpe Weir and navigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of meetings between the Trust (myself attending) and representatives of WMDC and YHL. We have discussed the risks and potential mitigations, and the outcome of those discussions is a proposal to install a fence at the interface between the hydroplant and the sluice gates. This would be on land not owned or managed by the Trust, though the Trust is a”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-from-Canal-River-Trust-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Maintain liaison with local emergency services as an unauthorised-access safety measure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(g) Ongoing liaison with the local emergency services.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Complete a detailed review of known trespass routes with an external health and safety adviser.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the evidence heard at the inquest and your comments, a further detailed review of the known routes taken by trespassers has been undertaken, with the assistance of an external health and safety advisor.”

Source location

2021-0131-Response-from-Yorkshire-Hydropower-Limited-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 May 2021

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
4/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026